The Imperative of the S.A.V.E Model – A Critical Argument for Customer-Centric Marketing in Contemporary Business

The Imperative of the S.A.V.E Model – A Critical Argument for Customer-Centric Marketing in Contemporary Business

Munyaradzi Mhaka

Department of Business Management,Lupane State University, Zimbabwe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120700038

Received: 05 June 2025; Accepted: 19 June 2025; Published: 30 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The traditional 4Ps marketing mix, while foundational, inadequately addresses the complexities of today’s dynamic, customer-empowered business environment. This paper argues for the immediate adoption of the S.A.V.E. marketing model (Solutions, Access, Value, Education) as a more relevant and effective framework for contemporary businesses. Shifting the focus from product-centricity to customer-centricity, S.A.V.E. enables organizations to build stronger customer relationships, differentiate themselves in the market, and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. This paper articulates the nuances of each S.A.V.E. element, drawing on the insights from Ettenson (2013) and other marketing scholars, and demonstrates its superiority over the traditional 4Ps in the current business landscape.

Keywords: S.A.V.E. Model, Marketing Mix, Customer-Centricity, Service-Dominant Logic, Value Creation, Marketing Strategy

INTRODUCTION

The contemporary business landscape has undergone a profound transformation, driven by technological advancements, heightened customer empowerment, and the emergence of the experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The conventional product-centric marketing approach, characterized by the 4Ps (Product, Price, Place, Promotion), has increasingly proven inadequate in navigating this intricate environment (Gummesson, 2007; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). In this context, customers have transitioned from passive recipients of marketing messages to active participants in the value creation process, demanding personalized solutions, seamless access, demonstrable value, and relevant information (Grönroos, 2008; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). As Darvidou (2024) notes, brands must transcend traditional multichannel strategies to deliver interconnected experiences that resonate with the modern, digitally-savvy customer. This shift underscores the necessity for brands to become integral parts of the customer’s narrative, focusing on how their offerings enhance the consumer’s personal story (HEC Paris, 2022).

This paradigm shift necessitates the adoption of customer-centric marketing models that prioritize understanding and satisfying customer needs (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Sheth, Sisodia & Sharma, 2000). The S.A.V.E. model, developed by Richard Ettenson, Eduardo Conrado, and Jonathan Knowles, offers a robust alternative to the 4Ps, providing a framework for businesses to align their marketing strategies with the realities of the 21st-century marketplace (Ettenson et al., 2013). This paper posits that the immediate and comprehensive adoption of the S.A.V.E. model is crucial for businesses striving to excel in the contemporary business landscape.

Deconstructing the S.A.V.E. Model: A Customer-Centric Approach

The S.A.V.E. model signifies a fundamental rethinking of the marketing mix, shifting the focus from the marketer’s perspective to the customer’s needs and desires (Wani, 2013). Each element of the model addresses a critical aspect of the customer experience.

For a start, the Solutions component emphasizes a comprehensive understanding of customer problems and the provision of tailored solutions, rather than merely promoting product features (Elliot, 2012; Gems, 2013). This necessitates an in-depth exploration of customer needs, pain points, and aspirations (Slater & Narver, 1998). As Ettenson et al. (2013) suggest, businesses must transcend product-centric paradigms and consider how their offerings can be bundled, integrated, or customized to deliver holistic solutions. Co-creation and collaboration with customers are fundamental to ensuring the relevance and effectiveness of these solutions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Moreover, the application of design thinking principles and innovation is imperative to develop creative solutions that resonate with customers and provide a superior user experience (Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009).

The Access element is pivotal in creating convenient and efficient channels for customers to access products or services (Leszinsky & Marne, 1997). In today’s omnichannel environment, businesses must establish a robust presence across multiple channels—both physical and digital—to accommodate customers’ diverse preferences and needs (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Ettenson et al. (2013) envision seamless integration across channels, supplemented by convenient delivery and distribution options, enhanced customer support, and a streamlined purchasing process. Leveraging technology and data analytics to optimize the customer journey is essential for providing a consistent and personalized experience across all touchpoints (Verhoef et al., 2015; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Radomska et al. (2025) emphasize that a holistic approach to addressing omnichannel challenges is vital for enhancing operational efficiency and channel effectiveness.

The Value perspective is central to delivering superior customer value, encompassing not only price but also factors such as time, effort, and emotional investment (Zeithaml, 1988; Bolton & Drew, 1991). Ettenson et al. (2013) argue that businesses must understand customer needs and preferences to tailor their offerings and establish unique value propositions. Differentiation through distinct benefits, customer-centric product development, and effective communication of value are critical for attracting and retaining customers (Slater, 1997; Woodruff, 1997). Continuous value delivery and customer satisfaction are paramount for fostering long-term relationships and brand loyalty (Reichheld, 2016; Anderson, Fornell & Rust, 2024). Valls Giménez (2017) highlights that the empowered customer expects personally relevant offers, necessitating businesses to revamp their strategies to meet heightened expectations.

Lastly, the Education aspect involves equipping customers with the knowledge necessary to understand a product’s benefits and maximize its utility (Leszinsky & Marne, 1997). Ettenson et al. (2013) advocate for empowering customers through knowledge, addressing their concerns, and building trust via relevant educational content. This requires identifying customer knowledge gaps, tailoring educational initiatives accordingly, and providing ongoing engagement (Rust, Zeithaml & Lemon, 2000; Bolton, Lemon & Verhoef, 2014). Furthermore, empowering employees with the requisite knowledge and training is crucial for effectively educating customers (Heskett et al., 2014; Zeithaml et al., 2016). Measuring the effectiveness of educational efforts and continuously refining strategies are essential for optimizing impact.

S.A.V.E. vs. 4Ps – A Comparative Analysis

The S.A.V.E. model offers several advantages over the traditional 4Ps framework. Firstly, S.A.V.E. places the customer at the core of the marketing strategy, whereas the 4Ps tend to be product-centric (Popovic, 2016; Fakeideas, 2018). In addition, the S.A.V.E. is more pertinent to the complexities of the modern business environment, including the rise of digital channels, customer empowerment, and the experience economy (Fakeideas, 2018; Ajouz, Akrout, & Elbaz, 2023). further, it provides a more holistic and integrated approach to marketing, considering the entire customer journey and all touchpoints (Ettenson et al., 2013, 2019). In addition, the S.A.V.E. concept emphasizes value creation for the customer, whereas the 4Ps primarily focus on the exchange of goods or services for monetary compensation (Gummesson, 2017; Grönroos, 2018).

And eventually, the model encourages businesses to cultivate long-term relationships with their customers, while the 4Ps often emphasize short-term transactions (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ravald & Grönroos, 1996; Phillips, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Ajouz, Akrout, & Elbaz, 2023). As highlighted by Taichung (2024), the S.A.V.E concept is particularly suited for B2B marketing, where providing solutions and demonstrating value are paramount. This shift from product-focused to customer-focused strategies is essential for navigating the dynamics of marketing management and achieving a competitive advantage.

 Table 1: S.A.V.E. vs. 4Ps

The Alignment with Service-Dominant Logic

The S.A.V.E. model aligns strongly with the principles of service-dominant logic (S-D logic), which posits that service is the foundational basis of exchange and that value is co-created by the customer and the provider (Vargo & Lusch, 2014; Lusch & Vargo, 2016). S-D logic underscores the importance of comprehending customer processes, facilitating value creation, and nurturing relationships through interaction and engagement (Grönroos, 2018; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). As Vargo and Lusch (2017) suggest, S-D logic continues to evolve, emphasizing the necessity for a general theory of value co-creation. The S.A.V.E. model operationalizes S-D logic by focusing on solutions, access, value, and education, all of which facilitate customer value creation and foster robust customer relationships (Ettenson et al., 2013). By adopting the S.A.V.E. model, businesses can embrace the principles of S-D logic and create a more customer-centric and value-driven marketing strategy.

Implications for Contemporary Business

The immediate adoption of the S.A.V.E. model has significant implications for contemporary businesses. By focusing on solutions, access, value, and education, organizations can cultivate stronger and more meaningful relationships with their customers (Fournier, Dobscha & Mick, 1998; De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder & Iacobucci, 2001). Understanding and addressing customer needs can enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty (Anderson et al., 1994; Reichheld, 1996). Furthermore, differentiating themselves through unique value propositions and superior customer experiences enables businesses to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Porter, 1985; Barney, 1991; Payne & Frow, 2015; Ballantyne & Varey, 2016). In prioritizing long-term customer relationships and value creation, organizations can achieve sustainable growth and profitability (Rust et al., 2000; Bolton et al., 2004). Lastly, aligning marketing strategies with customer needs and preferences can significantly improve the return on marketing investments.

CONCLUSION

The traditional 4Ps marketing mix, while historically significant, is no longer sufficient for navigating the complexities of the contemporary business landscape. The S.A.V.E. model presents a more relevant and effective framework for businesses striving to thrive in the 21st century. As they divert focus from product-centricity to customer-centricity, S.A.V.E. empowers organizations to build stronger customer relationships, differentiate themselves in the marketplace, and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. This paper advocates for the immediate and comprehensive adoption of the S.A.V.E. model as a pivotal step towards creating a more customer-centric and value-driven marketing strategy. Empirical studies and extant literature as shared in the foregoing contentions assert that businesses that embrace the principles of S.A.V.E. will be better positioned to meet the evolving needs of their customers, foster enduring relationships, and attain sustainable success in the years to come. The time for rethinking marketing is now; the time for S.A.V.E. is here.

REFERENCES

1. Ajouz, E., Akrout, H. & Elbaz, J. (2023). Driving Customer-Centric Digital Marketing in Emerging Markets: Strategies, Barriers, and Growth Opportunities. ResearchGate.
2. Ambler, T. & Roberts, J.H. (2006). Assessing marketing performance: reasons for metrics’ selection. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(3-4), pp. 275-298.
3. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. & Rust, R.T. (1994). Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(1), pp. 61-67.
4. Ballantyne, D. & Varey, R.J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: the exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp. 335-348.
5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 99-120.
6. Bolton, R.N. & Drew, J.H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), pp. 1-9.
7. Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. & Verhoef, P.C. (2004). The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset management: a framework and propositions for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), pp. 271-292.
8. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp. 84-92.
9. Darvidou, K. (2024). Omnichannel Marketing in the Digital Age: Creating Consistent, Personalized and Connected Customer Experiences. ResearchGate.
10. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), pp. 33-50.
11. Diamonddog Marketing. (2019). SAVE Marketing Model. Retrieved from [https://www.diamonddogmarketing.com/insights/save-marketing-model/]
12. Elliot, S. (2012). The SAVE Framework. Available from: [specify URL if available].
13. Ettenson, R., Conrado, E. & Knowles, J. (2013). Rethinking the 4Ps. Harvard Business Review, 91(1/2), pp. 26-28.
14. Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. & Mick, D.G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), pp. 42-51.
15. Gems, T. (2013). From 4P’s to SAVE. Available from: [specify URL if available].
16. GlobalSense Taichung. (2024). The SAVE Model: A Replacement for the 4Ps in B2B Marketing. Retrieved from [https://en.globalsense.com.tw/blog/how-4p-marketing-is-replaced-by-save-in-b2b-marketing/]
17. Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?. European Business Review, 20(4), pp. 298-314.
18. Gummesson, E. (2007). Exit services marketing—enter service marketing logic. Marketing Theory, 7(2), pp. 143-153.
19. HEC Paris. (2022). How HEC Paris Designs Executive Programs on Customer Centricity. Retrieved from [https://www.hec.edu/en/executive-education/news/how-hec-paris-designs-executive-programs-customer-centricity]
20. Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. & Schlesinger, L.A. (2014). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), pp. 164-174.
21. Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
22. Kohli, A.K. & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), pp. 1-18.
23. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of marketing. 16th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
24. Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. (2016). Marketing management. 15th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
25. Lemon, K.N. & Verhoef, P.C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), pp. 69-96.
26. Leszinsky, R. & Marne, M. (1997). Reframing the marketing mix. Marketing Management, 6(3), pp. 22-29.
27. Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S.L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp. 281-288.
28. Martin, R.L. (2009). The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
29. Marketingmix. (2024). What is SAVE in Marketing? Available from: [specify URL if available].
30. Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp. 20-38.
31. Payne, A.F. & Frow, P. (2015). A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), pp. 167-176.
32. Phillips, J.J. (2005). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
33. Pine, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy: work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
34. Popovic, D. (2016). Revisiting the Marketing Mix: The 4C’s. Available from: [specify URL if available].
35. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
36. Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: value creation through co-creation. New York, NY: Harvard Business School Press.
37. Radomska, J., Kawa, A., Hajdas, M., Klimas, P. & Silva, S.C. (2025). Unveiling retail omnichannel challenges: developing an omnichannel obstacles scale. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 53(13), pp. 1-20.
38. Ravald, A. & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), pp. 19-30.
39. Reichheld, F.F. (2016). The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
40. Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. & Lemon, K.N. (2000). Driving customer equity: how customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
41. Sheth, J.N., Sisodia, R.S. & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), pp. 55-66.
42. Slater, S.F. (1997). Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), pp. 162-167.
43. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), pp. 1001-1006.
44. Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A. & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), pp. 2-18.
45. Valls Giménez, J.F. (2017). Customer-Centricity: The New Path to Product Innovation and Profitability. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
46. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), pp. 1-17.
47. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 1-10.
48. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2017). Service-Dominant Logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34, pp. 46-67.
49. Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K. & Inman, J.J. (2015). From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), pp. 174-181.
50. Wani, T.A. (2013). From 4Ps to SAVE: a theoretical analysis of various marketing mix models. Business Sciences: International Research Journal, 1(1), pp. 540-547.
51. Woodruff, R.B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), pp. 139-153.
52. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp. 2-22.
53. Zeithaml, V.A., Rust, R.T. & Lemon, K.N. (2006). The customer pyramid: creating and serving profitable customers. California Management Review, 43(4), pp. 118-142.